It is morally bankrupt to constantly harp on one sin that is entirely inapplicable to you when other equally serious matters can easily be swept under the rug when they personally apply to you.

So I should drop my objection to murder then.

Good God. Here we go again...

It's a valid point. We're never perfect, so we would never state to anyone what was right or wrong because we "aren't allowed to until we have no sin to focus on." The saints weren't perfect, but they consistently preached against what was wrong. A modern example would be St. John of Kronstadt.

It is morally bankrupt to constantly harp on one sin that is entirely inapplicable to you when other equally serious matters can easily be swept under the rug when they personally apply to you.

So I should drop my objection to murder then.

Good God. Here we go again...

It's a valid point. We're never perfect, so we would never state to anyone what was right or wrong because we "aren't allowed to until we have no sin to focus on." The saints weren't perfect, but they consistently preached against what was wrong. A modern example would be St. John of Kronstadt.

What Nektarios appears to have been talking about, though, is that it is extremely wrong to harp on the sins of others - sins you have nothing to do with - while at the same time not making a stance against those sins you do fall into, wiping them under the rug; something which clearly shows an inability - or an unwillingness - to acknowledge and gaze upon your own sins.

Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice. Can you guess what it is?

If an cocaine dealer says that it is inappropriate to take LSD, he might be right objectively but it is laughable. At least in my experience, condemnations of homosexual actions are often connected with the sky is falling rhetoric while sins that are comparable are largely ignored. I'm not saying that such a situation justifies moral anarchy, rather it ought to case introspection. I'd guess that any person in this society knows what the traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality is - there's no real need to repeat it. On the other hand feeding the orphans and taking care of the sick might just help others see that there might indeed be some validity to that position.

If an cocaine dealer says that it is inappropriate to take LSD, he might be right objectively but it is laughable. At least in my experience, condemnations of homosexual actions are often connected with the sky is falling rhetoric while sins that are comparable are largely ignored. I'm not saying that such a situation justifies moral anarchy, rather it ought to case introspection. I'd guess that any person in this society knows what the traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality is - there's no real need to repeat it. On the other hand feeding the orphans and taking care of the sick might just help others see that there might indeed be some validity to that position.

Well, when we have people condemning feeding orphans and taking care of the sick, you will have a valid analogy, because right now we have plenty of people not only condemning the traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality, but demanding re-education on it and legal codification of this "life style choice."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

It is morally bankrupt to constantly harp on one sin that is entirely inapplicable to you when other equally serious matters can easily be swept under the rug when they personally apply to you.

So I should drop my objection to murder then.

Good God. Here we go again...

Of course. God hasn't changed His mind on the matter.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

right now we have plenty of people not only condemning the traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality, but demanding re-education on it and legal codification of this "life style choice."

We need to make a difference between religion and state. It is not the same whether you demand a legal right or the revision of a religious teaching.

As far as I know, nobody has asked for churches being forced to perform gay weddings against their conscience.

back towards your neck of the woods, they arrested a pastor in Sweden for preaching against it, and the agenda has been imposed on the (in Sweder, former) state churches.

Back in the US, where there is a separation of church and state (a distinction without a difference in some ways, but I don't have the time now to argue it), when the gay bishop took over the NH diocese of PECUSA, he then went about clearing it of those holding out for traditional morality. Conscience be damned. That's what happens when politics is allowed to form the conscience the church, rather than the opposite.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In fact, the Swedish Church decided by itself to adopt gay marriage, because that really is what they believe to be the right thing. I don't believe as they do, but it's not like they were forced against their will to adopt that thing in church...

As for the arrested pastor, it was not because he preached against gay marriage, but because of hate speech. Now I do favour the abolition of all hate speech laws, but the incident was not as you described it.

In fact, the Swedish Church decided by itself to adopt gay marriage, because that really is what they believe to be the right thing. I don't believe as they do, but it's not like they were forced against their will to adopt that thing in church...

As for the arrested pastor, it was not because he preached against gay marriage, but because of hate speech. Now I do favour the abolition of all hate speech laws, but the incident was not as you described it.

How do they define hate speech in Sweden? There are plenty of people in the gay lobby who would say preaching against gay marriage IS hate speech.

In fact, the Swedish Church decided by itself to adopt gay marriage, because that really is what they believe to be the right thing. I don't believe as they do, but it's not like they were forced against their will to adopt that thing in church...

Not exactly.

Quote

Two things prompted the Swedes to take this extra step--the welfare state and cultural attitudes. No Western economy has a higher percentage of public employees, public expenditures--or higher tax rates--than Sweden. The massive Swedish welfare state has largely displaced the family as provider. By guaranteeing jobs and income to every citizen (even children), the welfare state renders each individual independent. It's easier to divorce your spouse when the state will support you instead.

SWEDES ADRIFTThe Plight of Conservatives in the Church of SwedenThe Church of Sweden finally became disestablished on January 1, 2000. The process by which this came about appears to have consolidated the hold of the “liberal establishment” upon it, and offers little hope of better treatment to the marginalized “traditionalists” within it, barring the collapse of the church structure itself, which some foresee in the next decade or two.

Ordination has been effectively barred to all opponents of women’s ordination by the terms of the disestablishment. And with the advent of women bishops and a concurrent drive to secure the acceptance of “same-sex partnerships” and their “blessing” by the church, tensions have only increased. Underground congregations, or koinonias, have emerged within, and yet in defiance of, the Church of Sweden, while the “orthodox opposition” vacillates between revolt and departure.

In 1998 I reported on a gay “art” exhibition entitled “Ecce Homo” that debuted in Uppsala Cathedral and caused an uproar (“Berserker in the Cathedral,” Touchstone, November/December 1998). Since January 1, 2000, the Church of Sweden has been disestablished as the national church, although in such as way as to keep its liberal elite firmly in charge and to exclude traditionalist orthodox clergy from all hope of preferment (not least by banning the ordination of opponents of the ordination of women). Despite formal disestablishment, however, Uppsala Cathedral and its dean have continued their trailblazing role as promoters of moral and religious “pluralism” in the Church of Sweden. Within the last year there have been three episodes, each attracting considerable public attention, which have signaled their trend-setting role.

What does the disestablishment mean to the practical and the political life of the Church?

DS: Parliament enacted a new church structure, and we will still have political parties acting in the Church Assembly. So we have in one way a very “established” disestablished church. About 10 percent of the electorate votes in the Church Assembly elections. I think that figure will go down, perhaps to 6 percent. Well, for how long can you have elections under democracy with figures like this?

Speaking as an American, where we haven’t had established churches for a long time, and as an English historian, what seems strange about the Swedish situation is that it is taken as very significant that the Church of Sweden is being disestablished. But it is being disestablished wrapped from head to foot with chains forged by the government or by itself, with debates in the Riksdag about whether bishops can vote in the Church Assembly.

DS: Since 1864 we have had the civil communities separated from the Church. In earlier days the school and the central social functions were related to the parish, but after that date we had a new order. That situation lasted 140 years, and then we split on a national level. But in Sweden the way to control the Church is through the political parties. They can disestablish the Church as much as you want, but still they control the Church, and that’s the point.

Why the desire to control the Church? Is it just a political a priori that all social organizations must be ultimately under the control of the state, even if not formally under its control?

A GRIEF OBSERVEDOn Being a Living Priest in a Dying Church in SwedenThe issue of women’s ordination is both pivotal and illustrative. “Those who do not approve of the ordination of women must leave the Church of Sweden,” Bishop Caroline Krook of Stockholm announced in a newspaper interview, and the political and religio-political establishment and the mass media, with few exceptions, echoed her.

Nevertheless, in the struggle for the traditional Christian faith going on in Sweden, those who try to uphold it are more than unwelcome; they have been marginalized systematically for decades. Together with them I have seen and bear witness to all the small steps leading to where the Church of Sweden is now, without being able to stop it.

The Bishop of Växjö, Anders Wejryd, once told journalists that “one does not have the right of a private interpretation of the issue of the ordination of women. . . . It is a matter of loyalty.” Yet I, out of loyalty to the Word of God and the Tradition of the Church, do not even secretly wish to entertain a private interpretation of the issue of the ordination of women, and because of that, find myself in the paradoxical position that I would be refused if I applied for ordination today, nor would I be eligible for the position of rector of Rasbo, which I have held since 1980.

The Mission Province is still very small. Congregations in the Church of Sweden are geographical parishes. People belong to the geographical parish of the area in which they live, and are not allowed to belong to any other parish. Approximately 80 percent of the Swedish population belong to the Church of Sweden as “formal members,” and as these “formal members” have congregational voting rights even if they seldom come to church, we could not reasonably expect that any congregations would vote to affiliate with the Mission Province. So we had to set up free congregations, which we call “koinonias.

I could see the present Church of Sweden always following the way that the culture goes. Today, they are endorsing everything that is demanded by the homosexual lobby, the “gay lobby,” so two years ago, they decided to bless, in a wedding-like way, homosexual partnerships, and from this a lot of people came to understand more than before that the Church of Sweden is walking in a liberal way, a modernistic way, that can’t be considered biblical; and they will react sooner or later. The Church of Sweden is a “national church,” and most Swedes find it very hard to think seriously about any other church than the Church of Sweden.

But I think that people will be so disappointed—because there are no signs that the Church of Sweden will change its way, that it will challenge the culture, but will simply go on in its present path—that eventually those who are interested will look for something else. I don’t see that happening in the next few years, but it’s possible that there will be a sudden flood that will frighten us in the Mission Province because we will have problems dealing with it. For the next two or three years I foresee slow growth, not particularly substantial, but I think we have a firm foundation and so can have a good hope for the future.

As for the arrested pastor, it was not because he preached against gay marriage, but because of hate speech. Now I do favour the abolition of all hate speech laws, but the incident was not as you described it.

and the Soviets would imprison political dissidents in mental hospitals with a diagnosis of insanity. A distinction without a difference.

« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 03:22:41 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Anyway, it's majority rule in the Swedish Church and no one can eriously doubt that the majority of Swedes are left-wing and pro-LGBT.

Also, I don't think the Missionary Province or any other schism can be called a "solution". Being anti-gay is not a sufficent base for a church. Only the fullness of the Tradition can be the base, and only Orthodoxy is the solution.

Nektarios attempted to dismiss Orthodox morality in general by claiming that no Orthodox priest would not preach the truth as he sees it and risk his paycheck. Whatever else his faults, Fr. Trenham is not for hire.

I used a bit of hyperbole, but in general my point still stands. IME in the US few priests made a big deal of a uncomfortable sins that are in all probability pretty widespread. Instead they went for the crowd pleasers.

I have not found this to be the case, even in the most liberal of the Orthodox Churches that I have attended. There may be more discussion of "uncomfortable" sins by one Priest over the others, but I have found few "crowd pleasers". I will have to say that homosexuality, when being mentioned here and there, is not a really huge topic. I had a couple of Baptist friends of mine confront me about the fact that the Orthodox Church does not seem to speak out against homosexuality as much as the Evangelical churches. I told them that in the Orthodox Church, lust is a sin, sex is not allowed outside of marriage, and marriage is between one man and one woman. Those are simple rules to understand, so what is there to discuss?

As an aside, I did point out to my two Baptist acquaintances that both of them were on their third marriages. I had read in my psychology books (I cannot remember if it was in one by Otto Fenichel or another one that I have that is devoted to Paranoia) that those who rant the most about homosexuality are most often themselves repressed homosexuals. I told them that this is something to consider since they both seem to have trouble maintaining stable relationships with women. This was years ago, and they have not approached the subject with me again since.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Nektarios attempted to dismiss Orthodox morality in general by claiming that no Orthodox priest would not preach the truth as he sees it and risk his paycheck. Whatever else his faults, Fr. Trenham is not for hire.

I used a bit of hyperbole, but in general my point still stands. IME in the US few priests made a big deal of a uncomfortable sins that are in all probability pretty widespread. Instead they went for the crowd pleasers.

I have not found this to be the case, even in the most liberal of the Orthodox Churches that I have attended. There may be more discussion of "uncomfortable" sins by one Priest over the others, but I have found few "crowd pleasers". I will have to say that homosexuality, when being mentioned here and there, is not a really huge topic. I had a couple of Baptist friends of mine confront me about the fact that the Orthodox Church does not seem to speak out against homosexuality as much as the Evangelical churches. I told them that in the Orthodox Church, lust is a sin, sex is not allowed outside of marriage, and marriage is between one man and one woman. Those are simple rules to understand, so what is there to discuss?

As an aside, I did point out to my two Baptist acquaintances that both of them were on their third marriages. I had read in my psychology books (I cannot remember if it was in one by Otto Fenichel or another one that I have that is devoted to Paranoia) that those who rant the most about homosexuality are most often themselves repressed homosexuals. I told them that this is something to consider since they both seem to have trouble maintaining stable relationships with women. This was years ago, and they have not approached the subject with me again since.

LOL.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth